Pedestrian bollards protect walkways from vehicle intrusion, guide foot traffic, snow plows and can provide heating and illumination. They should be positioned in front of energy utility services (such as natural gas and electrical power switchgear). at sidewalk entrances, crosswalks, and near pedestrian-heavy zones. Join us today at 16:00 UTC when we examine best practice literature and a few construction details as time allows.
International & General Standards
ASTM F3016 – Standard Test Method for Surrogate Testing of Vehicle Impact Protective Devices at Low Speeds.
ASTM F2656 – Standard Test Method for Crash Testing of Vehicle Security Barriers.
ASTM A53 / A500 – Standards for steel pipe and tubing used in bollard construction.
ISO 22343 – Vehicle security barrier standards.
U.S. Codes & Regulations
ADA Standards for Accessible Design – Ensures bollards do not create accessibility barriers.
IBC (International Building Code) – Covers structural requirements for bollards in buildings.
An inglenook is an intimate space typically found beside a fireplace. Inglenooks often have built-in seating or benches, providing a comfortable spot for people to gather around the warmth of the fire. Originally inspired by cooking, but over time, they became more functional as spaces for relaxation, reflection, reading and socializing.
Today at the usual hour we examine that state of best practice literature for their safety and sustainability,
The codes, standards and guidelines that track accepted best practice:
ASME
ASME B31.9 – Building Services Piping
ASME B31.8 – Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems
ASTM
ASTM E2726 – Standard Terminology Relating to Chimneys and Ventilation Systems
ASTM E2558 – Standard Test Method for Determining Particulate Matter Emissions from Fires in Wood-Burning Fireplaces
Harvard University Dormitory Room | Smithsonian Museum | Thomas Warren Sears Collection
Today we break down public consultation notices for literature that sets the standard of care for the safety and sustainability of student housing in K-12 prep schools, colleges and universities. We deal with off-campus housing in a separate session because it involves local safety and sustainability regulations; most of which are derived from residential housing codes and standards.
Like any other classification of real property the average cost for room and board for a public university student dormitory depends on several factors such as the location of the university, the type of dormitory, and the meal plan options. According to the College Board, the average cost of room and board for the 2021-2022 academic year at a public four-year in-state institution was $11,620. However, this figure can range from around $7,000 to $16,000 or more depending on the specific institution and its location. It’s important to note that this average cost only includes the basic meal plan and standard dormitory room. Students may also have additional costs for a larger or more luxurious dorm room, a premium meal plan, or other expenses such as laundry or parking fees.
According to ring Rider Levett Bucknall, a global property and construction consultancy firm, the average construction cost for a student housing facility in the United States in 2021 was around $202 per square foot. However, this figure can range from around $150 to $300 per square foot or more depending on the specific project. Life cycle cost for new facilities with tricked out net-zero gadgets is hard to come by at the moment.
Because money flows freely through this domain we examine scalable densities and the nature of money flow patterns; partially tracked by the Electronic Municipal Market Access always on the standing agenda of our Finance colloquium.
Here are a few pros and cons of private sector construction of university-owned student housing:
Pros:
Increased housing availability: Private sector developers may be able to build more student housing units than a university could build on its own, which can help to alleviate the shortage of on-campus housing for students.
Faster construction: Private developers may be able to complete construction projects faster than universities, which can help to reduce the amount of time that students must wait for new housing options.
Reduced financial burden on the university: The cost of building and maintaining student housing can be significant, and private sector developers may be willing to bear some of these costs. This can help to reduce the financial burden on the university and free up resources for other initiatives.
Professional management: Private developers may have more experience managing large housing projects and may be able to provide more professional management services than a university could provide on its own.
Cons:
Higher costs for students: Private developers may charge higher rents than a university would charge for student housing, which can make housing less affordable for some students.
Reduced university control: Private developers may have different priorities than a university would have when it comes to building and managing student housing. This can lead to a reduced level of control for the university over housing quality, management, and policies.
Potential conflicts of interest: Private developers may be more focused on making a profit than on meeting the needs of students or the university, which can create potential conflicts of interest.
Less transparency: Private developers may not be subject to the same level of transparency and accountability as a university would be when it comes to housing policies, decision-making processes, and financial management.
It’s important to note that these pros and cons may vary depending on the specific circumstances and context of each individual university and private sector partnership.
Robert A. M. Stern is an American architect, educator, and author known for his contributions to the field of architecture, urbanism, and design. Stern has been particularly influential in shaping the aesthetics of educational campuses through his architectural practice and academic involvement. Here are some key aspects of his approach to the aesthetics of educational campuses that attract philanthropic legacies:
Pedagogical Ideals:
Stern’s designs for educational campuses often reflect his understanding of pedagogical ideals. He considers the spatial organization and layout of buildings in relation to the educational mission of the institution.
Spaces are designed to foster a sense of community, encourage interaction, and support the overall educational experience.
Traditional and Classical Influences:
Stern is known for his commitment to classical and traditional architectural styles. He often draws inspiration from historical architectural forms and traditional design principles.
His work reflects a belief in the enduring value of classical architecture and its ability to create a sense of timelessness and continuity.
Contextual Design:
Stern emphasizes the importance of contextual design, taking into consideration the existing architectural context and the cultural or historical characteristics of the surrounding area.
When designing educational campuses, he often seeks to integrate new buildings harmoniously into the existing campus fabric.
Attention to Detail:
Stern is known for his meticulous attention to detail. His designs often feature carefully crafted elements, including ornamental details, materials, and proportions.
This focus on detail contributes to the creation of visually rich and aesthetically pleasing environments.
Adaptation of Historical Forms:
While Stern’s work is firmly rooted in traditional and classical architecture, he also demonstrates an ability to adapt historical forms to contemporary needs. His designs often feature a synthesis of timeless architectural elements with modern functionality.
We are guided by four interdependent titles that set the standard of care for safety and sustainability of occupancies supporting the fine arts in education communities.
(1) Chapter 43: Spraying, Dipping and Coating Using Flammable or Combustible Material of NFPA 1: Fire Code. As a “code” the public has free access to the current 2021 Edition , and Chapter 43 at the link below:
Our interest lies in fire safety provisions for educational occupancies with activity involving paint, chemicals used with paint (art studios) and Class III combustible materials (garment design & prototyping).
(4) Finally, the International Code Council develops a competitor title — 2021 International Fire Code — which also provides fire safety standards for art, design and fashion studio safety. The IFC is developed in the Group A tranche of titles:
We encourage direct participation by education industry user-interests in the ICC and the NFPA code development process. A user interest in education community would have a job title similar to the following: Principal, Dean, President, Chief of Business Operations, Facility Manager, Trade Shop Foreman.
Harvard University
We maintain all four titles identified in this post on the standing agenda of our Prometheus (fire safety) and Fine Arts colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Issue: [10-31] [16-64]
Category: Fire Safety
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Josh Evolve, Marcelo Hirschler
Education communities are stewards of hundreds of commercial-class kitchens in which the proximate risk of electrical energy must be managed — water spills and grease, fires, worn electrical cords on countertop equipment, faulty wiring or equipment, damaged outlets or connectors, and improperly used or damaged extension cords among them. The safety and sustainability rules for this occupancy class is identified as Assembly Group A-2 in Section 303 of the International Building Code
We explore recent transcripts of expert committee activity in NEC Article 210 and provide links to video commentary.
Public comment on the Second Draft of the 2026 NEC will be received until April 18. We typically coordinate our effort with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee. The workspace set up for generating proposals can be found in the link below.
We examine transcripts to track technical specifics that apply to student accommodation kitchens (on and off campus), university-affiliated hospital kitchens and sport arenas.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
